ArticlePloS one2025
What instruments are available to aid or evaluate personalised care delivery, from the perspectives of healthcare practitioners and service users? A narrative scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough the widespread implementation of personalised care is commonly cited as one of the solutions to managing the burden of increasing multimorbidity, there is no established method for assessing and evaluating personalised care delivery. This review sought to describe the range of existing tools, instruments or methods for assessing, evaluating or measuring personalised care delivery, from the perspectives of healthcare practitioners and/or service users.
methodsA scoping review of literature published since 1990.
resultsFrom 3851 potential citations, 172 were included. Of these, 103 reported the development of a new instrument, and 69 reported the adaption of an existing instrument. Most instruments (81%) were designed for use in a specific clinical population. A focus on supported self-management was particularly common (80%). Few instruments were identified that explored the views of healthcare staff (n = 8) or carers (n = 1). Content analysis generated six domains: understanding the person; understanding capability; understanding behaviour; personalised care interventions; experience of care; and wider determinants. These domains have been used to propose a concept framework.
conclusionThis review identified a high number of instruments, designed to support personalised care delivery or evaluation. Many were designed to understand a single construct of care (e.g., supported self-management), at an individual level (e.g., patients) and in a specific population (e.g., diabetes). For clinicians wishing to utilise a standardised instrument for a specific purpose, there are many to choose from. Yet no tools encompass the full spectrum of constructs encapsulated within personalised care. Future work should focus on how instruments are used to improve personalised care delivery, particularly through a less siloed, multimorbidity lens.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.